Covid-35 Game Reflection

Covid-35 Game Reflection

Just like 15 years ago, when the world experienced the Covid-19 pandemic (Rothan and
Byrareddy, 2020), the Global Health Organization (GHO) recently declared a new coronavirus
outbreak (Covid-35) in 2035. GHO called for countries to implement stringent public health
measures locally and support global cooperation to avoid global recession or deaths of millions
like the Covid-19 pandemic (Anderson et al., 2020). The Covid-35 Game helped my team make
decisions and find solutions for our country, Kuda, to minimize the effects of Covid-35.
Kuda is a small country both in size and population with three dominant ethnic groups.
The nation's inadequate health system and impoverished state also influence how the country
responds to serious health issues, including the Covid-35 pandemic. Nonetheless, the rise in
human infectious diseases such as coronavirus poses greater risks for Kuda as it has little
resources to respond to these pandemics (Smith, 2014). My team worked around these problems
and implemented feasible measures and strategies towards fighting the outbreak. The matrix
game allowed us to work together as a team and collaborate and negotiate with other nations,
promoting global cooperation.
It was challenging to develop solutions in the game, especially with our country’s
minimum resources. However, instead of avoiding the situation and letting the problem grow, I
learned that it is better to approach it with all we have got. In our first meeting, we chose social
distancing, using masks, and tracing people who contracted the virus. We did not choose any
economic measures. After the first meeting, the measures employed used about half of the
Administrative Resource Points (ARP) resources in Kuda. Also, the infection levels reached 7.7,
social strain at 1.0, and a 0.88 GDP loss. Lastly, it led to a low political instability of 1.5 as
individuals collaborated despite their differences to combat the virus.

Other nations, such as Anglia, also used the game to find solutions. Angria employed
social distancing and wearing masks in public, working from home, and conducting mass testing
while postponing non-essential hospital treatment. Also, it restricted non-essential travels and
enacted a 14-day quarantine for individuals arriving in the country. These measures helped the
country to use less ARP resources and attain a low infection level of 4.8. They also led to a
social strain of 2.0, a GDP loss of 3.0, higher than in Kuda, and political instability levels of 1.5.
The country only relied on its ARP resources, unlike Kuda, which needed significant external
During the second meeting, I emphasized that we needed better solutions to reduce
consequences of Covid-35. We emphasized wearing masks and avoiding making social
gatherings. Secondly, we continued with contact tracing as the nation could not afford to test for
Covid-35 at a national level. We did not employ any economic and travel-related measures,
which put the country at risk for economic issues and increased infection. Nevertheless, we did
not ask for any ARP transfers. We used the available resources in our countries, reducing the
ARP resources from 5 to 1. The infection level, however, reached 13.7 (77%), GDP loss at 2.3
(200%), and increased political instability at 5.3 (242%). In my view, the country’s situation was
becoming worse, and the infection was spreading faster.
In the third meeting, we chose stricter social measures to emphasize all individuals to
wear masks and limited social meeting sizes. We also started mass testing and stopped non-
essential hospital treatments, creating space for treating individuals infected with Covid-19. We
also employed various travel measures where we discouraged non-essential travels. Though we
kept border trade open, limiting open-border travels helped manage the pandemic (Von
Tigerstrom, Halabi and Wilson, 2020). We also included social investment at 1, but we did not

receive any help from the GHO. We had ARP resources at 5, but as the infection spread, we
needed more resources, leading to an ARP leftover of -0.5, unlike in other countries where they
still had some resources. The measures taken in Kuda increased social strain. Nevertheless, the
infection levels were still high, and the country experienced high GDP losses and political
During our last team meeting, We enacted strict isolation and emphasized that individuals
should work from home, whereas maintaining social distance for those working at the offices.
Thirdly, we activated emergency hospital expansion plans and opened military hospitals for the
treatment of Covid-35 patients. Following Katz and Fischer’s (2010) guidelines, the country
could have set new healthy regulations to create better strategies to respond to the pandemic.
Though we did not restrict trade movements, we canceled all other non-essential travels. We
reached social investment at 2, and we needed business support up to level 2. The country was in
dire need of external donations, and we received 2 points from Anglia, 3 from Zembia, and 1
from Pimlico. With 15 ARP resources, we spent 14.5 points, leaving 0.5 ARP resources.
The game made us think about concepts and issues we had learned in class, such as
global cooperation and public health concerns. Significantly, it helped me understand the
importance of global cooperation and the need for governments to prepare for various health
concerns by building adequate medical facilities and training more health care providers.
Nevertheless, we should have implemented stricter social distancing and isolation rules and
encouraged individuals to wear masks from when the virus emerged. Also, we should have
restricted travels within and outside the country to reduce the infection's spread. Nevertheless,
we hope that the global health organization will donate ventilators and send teams to help with
health care delivery, disease surveillance, and contact tracing. I want to add that the matrix game

is a good tool for learning as it can help individuals make decisions and view their consequences
before implementing them in real life.



Anderson, Roy M., Hans Heesterbeek, Don Klinkenberg, and T. Déirdre Hollingsworth. "How
will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19
epidemic?." The Lancet 395, no. 10228 (2020): 931-934.
Katz, R., & Fischer, J. (2010). The revised international Health Regulations: a framework for
global pandemic response. Global health governance, 3(2).
Rothan, H. A., & Byrareddy, S. N. (2020). The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Journal of autoimmunity, 102433.
Smith, K. F., Goldberg, M., Rosenthal, S., Carlson, L., Chen, J., Chen, C., & Ramachandran, S.
(2014). Global rise in human infectious disease outbreaks. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface, 11(101), 20140950.
Von Tigerstrom, B. J., Halabi, S. F., & Wilson, K. R. (2020). The International Health
Regulations (2005) and the re-establishment of international travel amidst the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Travel Medicine.